1,695
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 444:
Line 444: + +
→The DNA-argument
P.S.: Oh yeah, the point with these large amount of really reliable dinosaur sightings. Should we discuss the large number of UFO sightings and Elvis sightings in the same sentence?
P.S.: Oh yeah, the point with these large amount of really reliable dinosaur sightings. Should we discuss the large number of UFO sightings and Elvis sightings in the same sentence?
If I think about it, maybe all these sightings are true and there are lots of elvis-faced-dinosaurs who come in their UFOs to spend the summer holidays near Loch Ness?
If I think about it, maybe all these sightings are true and there are lots of elvis-faced-dinosaurs who come in their UFOs to spend the summer holidays near Loch Ness?
:Wow, not going to lie, I thought that article might have been a parody at first. This article tries to associate psuedoscience in a '''fiction''' movie to real science and "evolutionists." The author's arguments are simply ridiculous, and I have a hard time taking this seriously. As much as I disagree with Creationism, seeing the beauty and the awesomeness of nature and life (esp. after my recent afternoon at the aquarium), I can understand the argument that this universe must have a creator. However, articles such as this take every bit of respect I have for Creationism and rip it apart. Please, as a service to yourselves, Creationists, don't cite or refer to such articles. They're not going to help your case in anyone's eyes but your own. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]<sup>[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</sup> 04:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)